----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Stringini

To: 

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:00 PM

Subject: Re: Pastor Murray is Wrong About Tongues

Luis

 

I'm in the process of adding the past year's  emails to my website and you were first and you will be last, if you want to respond to this  do so quickly because I hope to have my website updated within abbbout ten days. I've had you in the back of my mind all year because I generally do not avoid questions and I would not want you to believe I blew you off because your ideas had any merit.  No, quite the contrary, it was because your ideas carried so little merit, that I found it all too easy to ignore you for so long, so here is my response.

 

"Pastor Murray is Wrong About Tongues: I used to walk people through 1 Corinthians 14 and demonstrate (emphatically) how it was only talking about people being skilled at different languages and regulating their use.  The only problem is that it just doesn't make much sense." -Paul Stringini

 

Please tell me if THIS makes sense.  If the "speaking in tongues" of 1 Cor 14 *(different from Act 2)

 

I do not know that the tongues referred to in Acts are any different than those in 1 Cor 14 unless it is by reason of  time, place and the effect on the hearer.  They differ in that 1 Cor 14  refers to the speaking in tongues subsequent to the initial outpouring that comes with the baptism of the holy spirit.  I do see that difference, and of course in Acts 2 those present understood what those who spake with tongues were saying in their own language, we do not know however, if the speakers understood what they were saying.  Obviously Acts 2 was special but the miracle of translation was in the ears of the hearers, 

 

The Holy spirit was poured out numerous times in Acts and it is recorded that they "spake with tongues"  If the effect was to always hear the speaker speak in one's own language then tongues would not be called tongues, but prophesying, because speaking with tongues in one's own language is unremarkable.  There were not always people of foreign lands present to witness the miraculous translation of tongues as in Acts 2. 

 

It does not appear that the Apostles drew any distinction between the tongues that occurred on Pentecost and the tongues that happened later.

 

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

While it is possible when they heard these gentiles "speak with tongues" that the Jews heard Gentiles speak Aramaic, it is also possible that they hear them speak the way they had heard themselves speak. 

 

The bible is clear that the one who speaks in tongues does not know what he is saying, and that is the basis on which I build the logic here.  All of these passages make sense if the speaker does not understand himself.  For tongues to be detectable, the speaker cannot understand what he himself is saying.

 

 

If the "speaking in tongues" of 1 Cor 14 * is not talking about the use of  foreign languages and the necessity to correctly interpret  and translate these foreign languages, but of the MANIFESTATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,

 

 

1Cor14:5 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

 

To pray with the spirit is to pray without understanding.  That is the implication.  If I am fluent in Spanish then when I pray or sing in Spanish, I am praying or singing WITH understanding.  But the one who speaks in tongues does not pray or sing with the understanding.  This is so simple it hurts.

 

Also the injunction to "pray that he may interpret"  is odd in the framework of your interpretation.  If you have someone in your church who is bilingual, he can already interpret.  In applying such an interpretation the only time you need an interpreter is if someone speaks only a language that is unknown to the rest of the congregation, in that case, one wonders how one would even communicate with such a person without an interpreter on hand in the first place.  If we interpret the 1 Cor 14 passage as foreign languages, then we all have the "gift" of tongues as soon as we travel to a land where our native tongue is not spoken, all we need to do is pray to interpret.  This entire line of thinking is cumbersome and I can no longer find any valuable knowledge to be gleaned from following it.  What kind of "gift" is it to speak your own language in a foreign country?

 

Personally, I have thought this issue through from both sides.  I can tell you have not done this, you have accepted your interpretation and that is it.  I have already looked at it from your side so I have the advantage of knowing the ground you are fighting on.  The foreign languages interpretation does not fit in this passage.  it simply does not.

 

 then HOW do you propose we "FORBID" the manifestation of the Holy Spirit?

 

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

 

I did already answer this in my previous conversation with you. This is not a good argument.  The weight you lay on this point is far out of proportion to its actual power.  The act of "to forbid" means "to command not to do something."

 

How do you forbid to speak with tongues?   The answer is so simple.  You tell them not to do it.  This argument does not deserve this level of attention that you give it.  On the one hand I feel like I should ignore this, on the other hand I think that I ought to exploit this since you insist on pushing such a stupid argument.  And I do not use the word stupid lightly.  This is plain stupidity and I don't wish to be nice about it because you pestered me with this point.  I hold back from blasting people all the time, and I'm still accused of being a jerk, but there is no helping it here.  This is one of the least reasonable arguments I have ever heard.

 

And I still remember your reply, when I said that it was similar to when they forbade miracles you said:

 

Nice try..."Miracles" and the "Manifestation of the Holy Spirit" or "The Baptism of the Spirit" is NOT the same thing...

 

Both are manifestations of the power of God by the will of God.  No man is ever healed by the power and will of man.  Anything can be forbidden because man is stupid.

 

And also God can withhold the gifts of the spirit from those who do not wish to have them.  If they forbid tongues, God is not likely to give them tongues just like in the cities where Jesus did not find much faith.  He did very few miracles there.   

 

They forbad HIM **(the man) from doing so...  NO ONE can forbid GOD's MANIFESTATION , no one can forbid GOD from MANIFESTING HIS POWER my friend....it is Supernatural....

 

Since "to forbid" means to command not to do something, anything can be forbidden by anyone who can forbid.  I can forbid God, I can say, "God I forbid you from manifesting yourself to these people."  But just like anything else that is forbidden, just because it is forbidden does not mean that it is prevented.  You can forbid all day but the only one who is stopped is the one doing the forbidding because it is found he has no power or authority to forbid.   The idea of forbid does not imply the ability to actually stop the activity, it only means that someone is issuing a stop command. The idea "To forbid" comes with no reference to authority or power. 

 

Your mistake is that you think the word forbid means to stop/prevent, so you are saying things that are nonsense.  Forbid only indicates the will of the one doing the forbidding. 

 

And that is the point, the reason Paul tells us not to forbid the speaking in tongues is because we do not have the power or authority to do so, because such manifestations come from God.   We ought not to forbid such things lest we find ourselves fighting against God.

 

I doubt ANY man or woman could FORBID the manifestation of the Holy Spirit! *(according to many, "speak with tongues")

 

No one would say "I forbid the manifestation of God's Spirit"  but if they did not believe that speaking with tongues was a manifestation of God's spirit but rather a manifestation of demonic power, they might forbid it!  "I forbid you from speaking in tongues, that is the devil's work."  And like I said, they can talk all day, but who can forbid the manifestation of God and have God obey him?  Of course God will ignore the commands of men. But, also, God gives us what we ask for.   It is as I said, you are betraying an ignorance of what the word "forbid" means. 

 

I do see you perspective, you think "No one can forbid God from doing anything!"  I get it. But you are missing the fact that what that statement really means is that man has no power over God. But what man forbids, God overrules.  As also no one can mock God, for "God is not mocked,"  But people mock him with their mouths every day, surely, in the end, they will get theirs and we will see that it is true that "God is not mocked."  But still they mock him.  And people can forbid speaking in tongues too, but the only effect is that they find themselves resisting the power of God.  Who can resist God's power?  But they resist him every day..

 

However, we cannot forbid someone to speak in a foreign language in front of the congregation if there is one available to translate what is going to be spoken...and that person must correctly INTERPRET whta is being said in that foreign language.

 

And that would be fine except 1Cor 14 is not talking about foreign languages because....

 

1Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

 

This is not merely speaking of a foreign language speaker,  this is a very general verse, (a foreign language speaker speaks to men, fellow speakers of the language not present, and also consider the possibility that minority of others in the congregation might speak the same language.  This also raises the issue that if you have someone who only speaks in a foreign language in your church, he experiences church as if everyone is speaking in tongues constantly, and if he does not have the gift of interpretation, he still may not understand anything, and wonder why he is there at all)  This verse (1Cor 14:2) defines tongues. It is in the spirit, not in the understanding.   Having received the gift of the holy ghost with power I can only say that you are speaking from ignorance of things in which you have no knowledge.

 

1Cor14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

 

There is also this sense in 1Cor14 that one should prophesy instead of speaking in tongues, as though you could be one who speaks with tongues who would prophesy  without recourse to an interpreter. 

 

1Cor 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

 

For one who spoke with foreign languages but did not have an interpreter to prophesy is impossible, but Paul implies that one may prophesy instead of speaking in tongues, without recourse to an interpreter, but if one needs an interpreter, and one speaks an unknown foreign language then how are they going to prophesy without using that foreign language?   

 

Paul obviously spoke the same language as the Corinthians, so why would he even think of speaking to them in a foreign language or interpretation?  Especially since he did not need an interpreter in the first place.  

 

If you have had any experience in church you will find that you will not get many cases of people trying to speak in foreign languages in church without interpretation, but you will definitely get lots of cases (where tongues are not forbidden) of speaking in tongues where these regulations need to be considered to keep the peace.  People love to speak in tongues and it tends to get a little chaotic, so it is no surprise that 1 Cor 14 was written to regulate the practice and it FITS LIKE A GLOVE. 

 

That is the most obvious point of all, when it comes down to it 1 Cor 14 fits tongues like a glove.

 

**(for example:  If you adquire or learn Spanish, and you say "un avion"....you need to know the right interpretation of this phrase acording to its context, for "un avion" could have 2 meanings, one literal, meaning "a plane" one figurative, which means "a sneaky person"...When we encounter a "sneaky, deceitful person" we call him an "avion" in Spanish.........So, if you go to speak *(or translate) in a foreign language that you have acquired through God's grace and your dilligence in learning, to apply it for a spiritual purpose, you must pray that you INTERPRET correctly what you are reading or saying in that acquired language which is not your native tongue.)

That you could say that of our own language and of the bible and of all translations/interpretations.  And the basic idea is sound as a guide for life but it has nothing to do with 1 Cor 14  and is a very bad fit for that passage.  1 Cor 14 is in regards to the practice of speaking in unknown tongues as the SPIRIT gives utterance.  The passage defines tongues as a spiritual phenomena and as one void of understanding.  So therefore it is nothing like bilingualism.